In a globalized word, English has become the primary means of communication in language contact zone (Pratt, 1991; Thomason, 2001) where people of diverse socioeconomic and cultural background interact with each other. Under a monolingual paradigm, non-native English speakers have been denied the use of linguistic and paralinguistic resources from their L1. Translingual Practice (Canagarajah, 2013c) contests this paradigm and gives agency to English learners in postcolonial regions by not dichotomizing native and non-native speakers, but treating them all as translinguals who are engaged in shaping English norms. During this interaction, translinguals deploy their negotiation strategies not only for meaning negotiation but also language identity development (Ellis, 2013; Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2009).
This research was conducted in the context of an intensive English program in Gorontalo, a relatively new province in Indonesia where the presence of English native speakers is not prominent. The language contact zone was expected to encourage the participants’ (American volunteer teachers and Indonesian students) to deploy their translingual negotiation strategies in their oral communication. The first research question aims to enact those negotiation strategies which happened in personal, social, contextual and textual spheres. The second research purpose, which is highly related to the first research question, is how the enactment shapes their translingual identities. However, the spacio-temporal aspect of the enactment was expanded by reflecting beyond the intensive English program.
This qualitative inquiry was conducted through multiple data collection procedures; e.g. collecting participants’ demographic data, pre- and post questionnaires, interviewing, stimulated recall protocol, observation, journal writing and autoethnographical writing. The analysis of translingual negotiation strategies follows Canagarajah’s (2013c) framework of integrated analysis which focuses on classroom discourse during the program. This analysis of classroom interaction aims at depicting the deployment of macro strategies of envoicing, recontextualization, interactional and entextualization strategies with several micro strategies in each speech event. The analysis of the second data set mainly focuses on the participants’ reflections on learning and teaching English which shape their language identity.
Dealing with the first question, the research depicts the enactment of the macro strategies of translingual negotiation. The first macro strategy is envoicing strategies in which the research participants showed their language, social and personal identities during classroom interaction. The multilingual speakers did not feel discouraged in using their idiosyncrasies in grammar and diction while still wanting to improve their English through using it. They also used code mixing, code switching and even code messing as a way to express their voice despite their limited access to resources in the target language. In term of social identity, both the native speaker teacher and multilingual learners shared their opinions based on their national, ethnic, gender and religious affiliations to voice their interests of the intriguing issues of classroom discussion. In term of personal identity, the participants deployed pragmatic strategies to show their personality traits whether they were more introvert or extrovert during meaning negotiations.
Interactional strategies are quite well developed in communicative strategy research (Kirkpatrick, 2007) so that the micro strategies that interlocutors used are congruent with the literature. However, the significant difference in this analysis of these meaning negotiation processes is the attitude of not marking the meaning discrepancy during the interaction as an error. These strategies are also the most effective devices employed by the American volunteer teachers to reach the uptakes as well as to develop students’ competence in English. Mary’s (pseudonym, the native speaker teacher) strategy of using the `let-it-pass’ principle as a way of acknowledging the students’ translingual competence without necessarily ignoring the mistakes that her students made.
Dealing with recontextualization strategies, both multilingual and native speaker participants used “framing” and “footing” (Goffman, 1981) to contextualize the topics from the textbook that are mostly taken from American sources. The fact that Marydid not always have sufficient knowledge about the issues had encouraged the multilingual learners to use their “footing” to make the interaction run smoothly. On the other hand, John (pseudonym, the other American teacher) employed multimodality to show that language resources are beyond words. His competence as a polyglot, especially in mastering Arabic which is highly honored in Muslim region such as in Gorontalo, and his enthusiasm in speaking local languages (Indonesian and Gorontalo languages) became his added value in creating “footing” appropriate in the class discussion.
The participants deployed entextualization strategies to strengthen other strategies. They monitored their speech by using a gradual approach to convey their main intention to make sure that other interlocutors understood their utterances. Some micro strategies that they employed were simplification, segmentation, regularization and leveling.
The research shows that interactional and envoicing strategies have greater impact to the process of second language teaching and learning than the contextual and entextualization strategies. The envoicing strategies have enhanced students’ initiative to participate in the classroom interaction despite their limited knowledge of English. On the other hand, the deployment of interactional strategies have made the two American volunteer teachers scaffold the learning. However, more research is needed to develop a more comprehensive taxonomy of translingual negotiation strategies
The deployment of these translignual negotiation strategies that are innate capacity, especially for those who live in pluriligual country like Indonesia, have shaped the vocal participants of English teachers. The second analysis of participants' language identities shows diverse paradigms ranging from monolingual, multilingual to translingual tendency. Their perspective can be placed into a continuum where Mary was on the tendency of monolingual identities and Julie (pseudonym, one of the students) was on the other end of holding translingual identities. Julie was the only participant who dared to challenge monolingual approach even during her formation as a pre-service English teacher. Her determination to challenge the norms was truly connected with the negotiation strategies that she employed during the intensive English course. In her case, the interconnectedness of translingual negotiation strategies and translingual identities found its realization.